Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State ex rel. St. Paul Gaslight Co. v. McCardy, 64 N.W. 1133.

26 citing documents.

Kotschevar v. Township of North Fork 39 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1949
Kotschevar v. Township of North Fork 39 N.W.2d 107 Minn. 1949
Paul Gaslight Co. v. McCardy, 62 Minn. *244 509, ; Farmer v. City of St.
State Ex Rel. County of Hennepin v. Brandt 31 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 1948
State Ex Rel. County of Hennepin v. Brandt 31 N.W.2d 5 Minn. 1948
Paul Gaslight Co. v. McCardy, 62 Minn. 509 , .
Ambrozich v. City of Eveleth 274 N.W. 635 Minn. 1937
Ambrozich v. City of Eveleth 274 N.W. 635 Minn. 1937
Paul Gaslight Co. v. McCardy, 62 Minn. 509 , , a contract for lighting a courthouse and city hall for three years was upheld; Reed v. City of Anoka, 85 Minn. 294 , (contract for city water and hydrants for period of 31 years); Northern States Power Co. v. City of Granite Falls, 186 Minn. 209 , (contract for purchase of
Phelps v. City of Minneapolis 219 N.W. 872 Minn. 1928
Phelps v. City of Minneapolis 219 N.W. 872 Minn. 1928
Paul G. L. Co. v. McCardy, 62 Minn. 509 , ; State ex rel.
Borgerding v. Village of Freeport 207 N.W. 309 Minn. 1926
Borgerding v. Village of Freeport 207 N.W. 309 Minn. 1926
State v. McCardy, 62 Minn. 509 , , 25 R. C. L. 918.
State ex rel. Village of Chisholm v. Trask 193 N.W. 121 Minn. 1923
State ex rel. Village of Chisholm v. Trask 193 N.W. 121 Minn. 1923
(to compel mayor to sign an order for the salary of the city attorney); State v. Ames, 31 Minn. 440 , ; State v. Vasaly, 98 Minn. 46 , (to compel a mayor to sign an order audited by the comptroller and allowed by the council); State v. District Court of Ramsey County, 32 Minn. 181 , (to compel a city comptroller to countersign a contract); State v. McCardy, 62 Minn. 509 , (to compel a city comptroller to audit and adjust a claim).
Laird Norton Yards v. City of Rochester 134 N.W. 644 Minn. 1912
Laird Norton Yards v. City of Rochester 134 N.W. 644 Minn. 1912
The language of Justice Mitchell in State v. McCardy, 62 Minn. 509 , , is apt here: “In so far as the contract has been thus executed, it stands precisely as if it had been one to furnish light [coal] at the pleasure of the committee [city].” 2 Dillon, Municipal Corp. (5th Ed.) 793, 794.
White v. City of Chatfield 133 N.W. 962 Minn. 1911
White v. City of Chatfield 133 N.W. 962 Minn. 1911
In State v. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540 , , the statement made on the authority of the Borough of Henderson case that, prior to the act of 1893, the county of Hennepin could not undertake the building of a courthouse jointly with the city of Minneapolis was purely obiter, as was the statement in State v. McCardy, 62 Minn. 509 , , that the county of Ramsey and city of St.
State ex rel. Patterson Street Lighting Co. v. Jones 106 N.W. 963 Minn. 1906
State ex rel. Patterson Street Lighting Co. v. Jones 106 N.W. 963 Minn. 1906
State v. McCardy, 62 Minn. 509 , ; State v. Anderson, 63 Minn. 208, 210 , .
Schmitz v. Zeh 97 N.W. 1049 Minn. 1904
Schmitz v. Zeh 97 N.W. 1049 Minn. 1904
State v. McCardy, 62 Minn. 509 , ; State v. Egan, 64 Minn. 331 , ; Beck v. City of St.
State ex rel. School District No. 51 v. Bailer 97 N.W. 670 Minn. 1903
State ex rel. School District No. 51 v. Bailer 97 N.W. 670 Minn. 1903
Paul, 21 Minn. 421 ; State v. Archibald, 43 Minn. 328 , ; State v. McCardy, 62 Minn. 509 , ; State v. Egan, 64 Minn. 331 , .
Beck v. City of St. Paul 92 N.W. 328 Minn. 1902
Beck v. City of St. Paul 92 N.W. 328 Minn. 1902
The general law can have full effect beyond the scope of the particular or special act, and, by allowing the latter to operate according to its special aim, the two acts can stand together.” State v. McCardy, 62 Minn. 509, 516 , .
State v. Anderson 65 N.W. 265 Minn. 1895
State v. Anderson 65 N.W. 265 Minn. 1895
State v. McCardy, 62 Minn. 509 , .